<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>great traditions of higher education by ohtempora</title>
<style type="text/css">

body { background-color: #ffffff; }
.CI {
text-align:center;
margin-top:0px;
margin-bottom:0px;
padding:0px;
}
.center   {text-align: center;}
.cover    {text-align: center;}
.full     {width: 100%; }
.quarter  {width: 25%; }
.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
.u        {text-decoration: underline;}
.bold     {font-weight: bold;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1><a href="https://archiveofourown.org/works/27482257">great traditions of higher education</a> by <a class='authorlink' href='https://archiveofourown.org/users/ohtempora/pseuds/ohtempora'>ohtempora</a></h1>

<table class="full">

<tr><td><b>Category:</b></td><td>FAQ: The "Snake Fight" Portion Of Your Thesis Defense (McSweeney's Post) - Luke Burns</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Genre:</b></td><td>Academia, Gen, Pastiche, Snakes</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Language:</b></td><td>English</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Status:</b></td><td>Completed</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Published:</b></td><td>2020-12-25</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Updated:</b></td><td>2020-12-25</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Packaged:</b></td><td>2021-05-06 20:21:24</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Rating:</b></td><td>Teen And Up Audiences</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Warnings:</b></td><td>Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Chapters:</b></td><td>1</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Words:</b></td><td>1,509</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Publisher:</b></td><td>archiveofourown.org</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Story URL:</b></td><td>https://archiveofourown.org/works/27482257</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Author URL:</b></td><td>https://archiveofourown.org/users/ohtempora/pseuds/ohtempora</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Summary:</b></td><td><div class="userstuff">
              <p>A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in the University of Michigan, 2018.</p>
            </div></td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Comments:</b></td><td>27</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Kudos:</b></td><td>187</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Collections:</b></td><td>Yuletide 2020</td></tr>

</table>

<a name="section0001"><h2>great traditions of higher education</h2></a>
<div class="story"><div class="fff_chapter_notes fff_head_notes"><b>Author's Note:</b><ul class="associations">
      <li>For <a href="https://archiveofourown.org/users/ionthesparrow/gifts">ionthesparrow</a>.</li>



    </ul><blockquote class="userstuff">
      <p>Thank you to A. for reading this and giving me tips re: the academia of it all! My deepest apologies to the authors of the random University of Michigan history theses I clicked through when looking for examples on how to spoof a history thesis; my thanks to Michigan, a university I have no association with but could easily google, for having those publicly available for download. </p><p>Happy, happy Yuletide, ionthesparrow. I hope there are no (unwanted) snakes.</p>
    </blockquote></div><div class="userstuff module">
    
    <p>
  <b>“Don’t Appoint a Committee on Snakes”: Academic Snake Fighting in Postwar America, 1945-1968</b>
</p><p>
  <b>by</b>
</p><p>
  <b>Victoria Kaarme</b>
</p><p>A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in the University of Michigan, 2018. </p><p>Doctoral Committee:</p><p>Professor Sean Schlange, Co-Chair<br/>
Professor Keyana Orm, Co-Chair<br/>
Associate Professor Tanith Nahas<br/>
Professor Yewande Ejo<br/>
Associate Professor Ivan Zmiya</p><p>
  <b>Dedication</b>
</p><p>For Mom and Dad, with love. </p><p>
  <b>Acknowledgments</b>
</p><p>...and finally, I'd like to thank David Anguis, who has been selecting snakes at the University of Michigan for thirty years with consummate care and utmost professionality. Thank you for letting me interview you, for sharing your thoughts, for tending to these serpents while keeping the entire History department in check, and of course, for selecting my snake during the inevitable defense of this thesis. Snake-picking may not be an exact science, but in David's hands, it is an art.</p><p>
  <b>Abstract</b>
</p><p>“‘Don’t Appoint a Committee on Snakes’: Academic Snake Fighting in Postwar America, 1945-1968” examines the longstanding tradition of thesis defense by snake fight post-World War Two as the GI Bill went into effect and American universities began accepting more and more women into their ranks. Rooted in interdisciplinary scholarship, I argue that academic snake fighting both leveled the playing field and expanded ideas of who could be a scholar in the postwar United States, reflecting the slow march of progress in the mid-twentieth century. </p><p>‘Don’t Appoint a Committee on Snakes’ draws upon university records and policies, newspaper articles, personal papers, interviews, and other archival sources such as diaries, memoirs, and letters. Additionally, I examine contemporaneous scientific research on snakes and studies corroborating particular snake breeds to, variously, gender of student and selected field of study. Through this, I consider three separate spaces in academia: the classroom, the library, and the room reserved for the defense, and their impact on academic growth. Finally, I discuss the expanding corroboration of intensity of poisonous snake to bibliography strength beginning in the early-to-mid 1960s, and its impact on research and the growth of pink-collar jobs throughout academia as increasing numbers of women joined the academic workforce. </p><p>
  <b>Introduction</b>
</p><p>In 1945, Helen Frances Blount walked into the room booked for her thesis defense at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, to cross the final hurdle to her doctorate in history. Like many women nationwide, her husband, a Navy man, had just returned from fighting in the Pacific theater. Like many more women, she had worked during the war effort, holding down a job in addition to her studies. She was not the first woman to attempt her doctorate at Brown - that was Martha Tarbell, who received a PhD in German Studies in 1897 - nor would she be the last by far. Like the others in her cohort, she was prepared for what would come ahead: first the intensive questioning, then the snake. Unlike the others, she was the only woman, and had faced several years of questioning regarding not only her ability to research, but her skills at wrangling snakes. </p><p>Ultimately, Blount’s thesis defense was successful. She impressed the committee not only with her passionate and knowledgeable defense of her dissertation on American foreign policy during the Civil War, but with her quick disposal of a snake chosen for her by Brown’s facilities manager, a man who remained unconvinced that women had a place in the halls of the university. Blount made both local and national headlines, once it was ascertained she had dispatched her snake more efficiently than anyone else in her cohort. Unlike many of her male classmates, she was not able to find a teaching position; her snake fight was dismissed as a fluke by other faculty, and some of her offers would have limited her to teaching what would have been considered “soft” subjects, appropriate for women. </p><p>Once Blount’s husband returned from his Navy deployment, they moved to the east coast, where Blount eventually found a position teaching at Smith College. Blount became well known for her research in postbellum American foreign policy, and stayed at Smith until her death in 2003. She kept in touch with many former students, who, inspired by her, often went on to pursue their own doctorates. Even as professor emeritus, Blount became infamous at the school for passing her tips on snake fighting to seniors considering applying to PhD programs. </p><p>Blount’s story is, in many ways, a conventional "overcoming narrative" of the time. A woman academic, doubted at every turn, defeats not only sexism but snakes to one day secure a teaching position. But much of Blount’s story, and indeed its impact, gets lost if viewed only through that lens. </p><p>. . . . </p><p>
  <strong>Excerpts</strong>
</p><p><b>….</b>Ratio of poisonous snake to bibliography strength is an invention of the mid-twentieth century. Some of this is due to the advancement of science: lack of serpentine knowledge would have hindered eighteenth century academics. After Darwin, there were some efforts at better snake classification and doctoral defenses. But it would take another 80 years before proscribed rules were set by Harvard University, setting off a chain reaction across the Ivy Leagues to tie bibliographical strength to snakes….</p><p>….an examination of newspaper records shows the impact of women scholars defending their doctoral dissertations via snake fight. Many women received favorable writeups in hometown papers, assuming their dissertation was seen to be on an “appropriate” topic. Notably, women pursuing engineering degrees often underwent some skepticism - not at their ability to fight snakes, but instead for their chosen field of study. </p><p>….of course, not all stories were success stories. However, academic records show the drop-out rate began to level out in 1968: an equal number of women and men chose not to fight a snake, and to exit their academic pursuits. While external factors remained, the threat of losing a snake fight was an equalizing deterrent….</p><p>…The snake fights do present a confounding factor in research. As snake size and type are so intricately tied to the strength of the dissertation, it is impossible to remove subjectivity from any analysis of snake selection. Dissertation strength was determined by the student’s committee, which came with its own implicit biases. Careful examination of university records shows some - though not many - candidates fighting snakes that were later found to be disproportionate to the quality of their dissertation. At least one candidate, who later went on to lecture at Dartmouth University, fought a uniquely poisonous snake, due to an advisor’s disapproval of her topic and her place in the university. She did subdue the snake, though not without struggle. News of her victory spread rapidly, especially for the time; she was written up in both local and national papers, including the <em> New York Times </em>society pages.</p><p>….Many students booked ‘lucky’ rooms for their thesis defense and snake fight. Which rooms were seen as lucky became a part of academic lore. By 1960, there was unofficial standardization: even amongst a cohort, certain students were allowed to use only specific rooms for their defense.</p><p>…additionally, the increasing notoriety of snake fights may have contributed to the overall increase in cohort size seen starting in 1961. Snake fights were viewed as one of two ways: either increasing academic reputation and prestige, as yet another surmountable challenge, or as too rough-and-tumble for young women. The latter was the minority view, albeit prevalent in certain regions of the United States.</p><p>. . . .</p><p>
  <b>Conclusion</b>
</p><p>Postwar academia underwent dramatic shifts during the changing mores of the time period. As academia went, so did its snakes. This dissertation has operated under the idea that snakes are representative of broader ideals in American university halls: who is explicitly allowed, who is implicitly accepted, and changing views of who can <em> be </em>an academic. Snake fighting, and strong snake fights by women scholars, increased their acceptance throughout major American institutions. It had long-reaching impacts on research and the academic job market beginning in the 1950s, and intersected with the growth of second-wave feminism in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Snakes cloak the stories we tell of our academic and professional journeys. This dissertation has not operated from the premise that academia is exceptional in its progress; in fact, it often shows the opposite. Instead, it examines that slow progress through the form and ceremony of the snake. </p><p>Any new PhD student, upon learning about the snake-fighting portion of their thesis defense, will tend to focus on the snake.  Questions and gossip abound regarding the size and strength of the chosen snake. Inquisitive students will scheme to disregard their thesis entirely and fight the largest snake at the university’s disposal. Most other students will strategize, turning to their mentors and friends for tips. This is only natural. But this dissertation has shown it is about more than the snakes, or the fight, or the judgment of one’s peers mid-snake fight as they turn desperately to the perceived charms of a flute or pray for unforeseen hidden strength. In their construction and form, the snakes do not reflect only academic ability. The snake fight is not a final judgment. Instead, they truly reflect the academic self. </p>
  </div></div>
</body>
</html>